Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 22:57:58 +0000
Subject: Re: No true relativist!
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <89ea9e0a4ddc271a7bc16200c6a5dbb4@www.novabbs.com>
 <180651eb5742ea7d$15$992698$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <a83d1952019a4b74154a893db4939275@www.novabbs.com>
 <861f0c1aa068b2ad069df2ed8ff9f44a@www.novabbs.com>
 <_vadnfzJT-9pfrL6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 14:57:58 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <_vadnfzJT-9pfrL6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <QkWdnRsUQoJqdbL6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-bf4qnG+lEiY1wSfXYHpVPnHGkQhsE1GXT6NgSzlJbtxGvMJlRvtb8ov252TBuhO7MDtbtyvWG3LE3hq!7HtpOV+Cc+J7fdnjdTeXXr9/whb+xbi+xiBeiRgQ/BhI3Bi+gCCee/aAbnVZUuSQOrOnciFAslav
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6312

On 11/09/2024 02:36 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/09/2024 02:16 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> Mr. Hertz:
>>
>> Thanks for the Schwarzschild article. Having read it, it is clear he did
>> not understand how logically fallacious the idea of curved space is.
>> That is not indicative of high intelligence. Space is either an
>> abstraction making the curving of it irrelevant to physical space or a
>> vacuum making it something with no substance to curve. Curved space is
>> not permissible to the logical and rational scientist. It's permissible
>> to the licentious and deceitful. There is absolutely no empirical
>> evidence for it. It would require that parallel lines be proven to meet.
>> There is no evidence for a closed universe, which is a finite universe.
>> They wanted it to be finite so they could apply entropy, which only
>> applies to closed systems. This is unwarranted. In the Schwarzschild
>> article you provided he argues for assuming a curvature of space so
>> small as to be unnoticeable in a universe of the small size he
>> contemplates of 10,000 ly wide. In this way he makes his curvature
>> irrefutable by empirical means.
>>
>> Schwarzschild himself says, "Thus the curvature of a hyperbolic space is
>> so insignificant that it cannot be observed via solar system
>> measurements, and because hyperbolic space is infinite, like Euclidean
>> space, no unusual appearances will be observed on looking at fixed star
>> systems."
>>
>> The article starts: "If I presume to present a few remarks that have
>> neither any real practical applicability nor any pertinent mathematical
>> meaning, my excuse is that the topic we are considering has a particular
>> attraction for many of you because it presents an extension of our view
>> of things way beyond that due to our accessible experience, and opens
>> the most strange prospects for later possible experiences. That it
>> requires a total break with the astronomers’ deeply entrenched views
>> cannot but seem a further advantage to anyone convinced that all
>> knowledge is relative."
>>
>> Schwarzschild wrote, "One finds oneself there — if one wants to — in a
>> geometrical fairyland, but the best thing about these fairy stories is
>> that one does not know whether they will indeed turn out to be true. The
>> questions as to how far we have pushed back the boundaries of this
>> fairyland can now be asked: how small is the curvature of space? and
>> what is a lower bound for its radius of curvature?‡."
>
> The, "Fourth Dimension", is considered at least two things,
> and one of them is a perspective dimension of free thought,
> and the other is a perspective dimension of analytical book-keeping,
> then though some have it that the absurd and ludicrous/ridiculous/
> incredible follow after "Ex Falso Quodlibet", which others have
> as repulsive and rejected because instead there's "Ex Falso Nihilum".
>
> So, after Newton and "System of the World", it was also used to
> help abandon and reject notions like "natural order" and other
> matters of repressive fate or destiny, so, that logicist positivism
> became the central underpinning of 20'th century philosophy,
> falling adrift from teleology and determinism into the
> existentialist/nihilist neither-nor.
>
> So anyways the "forget what you know" bit can go stuff itself,
> then there are matters of how mathematics can yet fulfill,
> the things the theory, with as well some renewed teleological
> metaphysics (not necessarily theological, merely a minimal
> teleological), the teleological and ontological, as with
> regards to that the theory belongs to the philosophers,
> which as thinking beings you aspire to know or be.
>
> Then, with regard to space-time curvature, besides the
> "singularity" as asymptotic the infinity, it's more
> generally for singularity theory that it's multiplicity
> theory. The singularities / catastrophes / perestroikas ,
> are each merely branches in multiplicity theories.
>
> So, ..., the "spiral, space-filling curve", has,
> curvature: 1/R. So, being a sort of singularity
> and original itself, then it is the natural curvature
> of the gauge theory's "R-gauge".
>
>
> Then as with regards to modern philosophy and the
> associated logic, there's mostly that the deductive
> inference is a fuller completion and that any
> good, relevant logic is a relevance logic and modal.
>
> So, "Foundations" needs some fixing thoroughly.
>
>

There's a bit of "stronger-than-Noether theorem"
with regards to that continuity law(s) are what
real conservation law(s) are.

Then there's the quasi-invariant with regards to
the pseudo-differential the symmetry-flex,
in running constants, which of course have
been noted since fifty years by NIST
Particle Data Group "CODATA".

Otherwise it just "breaks" all the time.